[GRASSLIST:10801] Re: [GRASS5] FWD: [OSGeo-Discuss] Incubation Committee / Contributor Agreements]

[Moritz Lennert]

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Glynn Clements wrote:
> 
>> I believe that, in most cases, releasing code under the GPL provides
>> the maximum benefit, as anyone wishing to create derivative works also
>> has to licence their version under the GPL. The more GPL'd code that
>> exists, the greater the incentive for developers to make new code
>> available under the GPL.
>>
>> The CLA grants the foundation the right to redistribute contributed
>> code under almost any licence, including those which permit
>> proprietary derivatives (e.g. BSD and MIT licences). Such licences
>> provide significantly less incentive for developers to share their
>> additions or enhancements.
> 
> 
> Glynn,
> 
> Well, I think this is the information we need.  If the CLA is perceived
> as a backdoor to undoing the GPL by a significant number of potential
> contributors then I think we will just have to alter the CLA to respect
> existing licensing.
> 
> For projects such as MapGuide OS that sign over all copyright to the
> foundation, the option of relicensing would still exist. For project
> like GRASS that don't sign over copyright, and more limited CLA would
> not provide any mechanism to weaken the GPL.
> 
> Note, I am not a big fan of the GPL myself, but I don't think the CLA
> ought to be positioned to undermine the GPL.
> 
> Of course, I'm not the final authority, but I think we can get the CLA
> terms reviewed if Markus and I bring your feedback to the board.
> 
> Are there are other GRASS contributors that feel the same about this as
> Glynn does?


Even though I do not contribute much, I do support Glynn's position very 
strongly.

Moritz